Obama- urges court, Gay Marriage ban

[epan]

This might surprise you, but I was making some of the points that Dr. Jennifer Morse is now making long before she was. The problem is that gender role in society has been so screwed up, that it no longer makes sense legally to make any decisions based on gender. I disagree with this societal policy. It affects far more than just how marriage is perceived, or what comprises a marriage contract.

There are profound differences between the sexes, not all of which are understood. But legally, we are committed as a society to eliminating those gender differences. When it comes to marriage, Morse points to no fault divorce as the culprit, and I agree with her but I don’t think that she always fleshes out why no fault divorce plays a role. No fault divorce was the beginning of the legalization of eliminating gender role in marriage. From that beginning, the trend continued until all legal gender distinctions have been removed. Morse talks more about its effect in making marriage impermanent, but I see a different implication.

As I have said before, which you may not have seen, if you eliminate gender roles in marriage under the law, then logically it doesn’t make a lot of sense legally to then continue to say that gender matters when it comes to granting a civil marriage contract.

This does not change the moral prohibitions, but those are not always the place of government to put its nose into, when they are religious objections.

This is why I say, that while this is a legal redefinition of marriage which is proposed, it is not a SUDDEN redefinition. It is just one more step, after many have been taken to redefine heterosexual marriage.

I would be in favor of restoring gender roles to marriage, legally, and eliminating no fault divorce. I would like to redefine it backwards, so to speak, which I also believe is more in line with Church teachings. If that were to happen, then I would say that gay marriage makes no legal sense at all, unlike what I say with the current state of heterosexual marriage. As a personal civil right, why should homosexuals be treated any differently than heterosexuals, if heterosexuals have no legal obligation to uphold gender differences?

The children’s rights arguments are compelling, but they are not currently supported much more by heterosexual marriage than they would be by homosexual marriage, precisely because divorce is so easy. Look at the numbers. A requirement to stopping the social momentum toward gay marriage would be to change the social momentum in heterosexual marriage.

One point, which Morse makes, and which I think has a lot of appeal to the libertarian mind who might also be in favor of gay marriage, is the issue of increased government interference in private lives as a result of gay marriage. I won’t repeat her argument here, it is available online to anyone who is curious. But she makes a compelling case that gay marriage is a governmental creation, and due to certain aspects of it, the government then will take a greater interest in its regulation. I would think that this would be a rather compelling issue, which most people don’t consider when discussing the issue, because to the average person they are thinking in terms of how small the minority of gay people is, and how little impact this will have on their lives.

Oh, I forgot to mention the adultery issue. It is a crime in the US Military, still. If no fault divorce were repealed, then one might predict a dramatic increase in cohabitation. As a society, we would have to decide if this is acceptable, or whether adultery laws should be put back on the books.

I guess what I look for in these matters is consistency and logical coherence in moral position.

This is the greatest appeal of Catholicism to me. What I propose is more in line with the larger body of Catholic teaching than mere opposition to same sex marriage, if my understanding is correct of the Catechism, and also what is happening socially and legally.

 

[LightFromLight]

Nearly each page is good for a chuckle. I think it was hastily written, and not very well thought out. Here is an example:

When has there ever been “real equality”, whatever that is supposed to mean, between races or between men and women? There are now equal rights, under the law, which is VERY different.

What homosexuals are asking for is equal rights under the law. I doubt that many people would say that men and women are equal, any more than they would say that a same sex marriage and an opposite sex marriage are equal. What is being asked for is equal rights and protection under the law, just as men and women have that. The question is not one of underlying equality, but of the right to be treated with legal equality.

I strongly object to the way that both sides try to distort and confuse the issues.

All human being are equal because of their inherent value. Therefore, it is right to say all races are equal, the sexes are equal, a child’s life is equal to an adult, etc.

Relationships between individuals are not equal. The sexual relationship of two men or two women is not equal to that of a man and a woman because it is unfruitful. Marriage is the perfect way of continuing the human race. Homosexual relations contribute nothing.

Remember, the greatest inequality is to try make unequal things equal.

 

[epan]

All human being are equal because of their inherent value. Therefore, it is right to say all races are equal, the sexes are equal, a child’s life is equal to an adult, etc.

Relationships between individuals are not equal. The sexual relationship of two men or two women is not equal to that of a man and a woman because it is unfruitful. Marriage is the perfect way of continuing the human race. Homosexual relations contribute nothing.

Remember, the greatest inequality is to try make unequal things equal.

Sorry. All humans are not equal, and in very many ways. But this does not mean that they should be be treated with equality under the law.

Please explain what you mean by your last statement.

How is it “inequality to try to make unequal things equal”? That just sounds like nonsense to me, without some further explanation.

 

[josh987654321]

The children’s rights arguments are compelling.

Yea the childrens right’s arguments are compelling, on one hand I say it is wrong because of what I have mentioned earlier in regards to ‘homosexuality’ and that the parents actions are the childs greatest influences or role models in their life.

Yet on the other hand, if it is a child up for adoption that has nowhere to go, how do you determine which options is better than this or that, once the best option of a healthy mother and father has been exhausted?

I know how it is supposed to be, but I don’t know what we should be doing when we stray from how it is supposed to be done.

But ‘homosexuality’ and surrogacy are way, way wrong I think, it’s intentionaly crippling a child.

You are against homosexual marriage with me and now you have taken it a step further to attack the high divorce rates (not sure how no fault divorce works, I have never heard of the term ‘no fault divorce’), I would have hesitated to go to the divorce issues because there are alot of people out there and who I know that are either divorced and remarried, or their parents have been divorced and remaried, and that no matter how much sense you make on divorce, they will refuse to see it, because to acknowledge the truth of divorce means that they don’t get a “Second Chance” when it comes to marriage, it stops them from the real commitment of marriage, while others think that they are fully commited, because they all like the idea of “a way out” or “second chance” in marriage.

If you are also against euthanasia, suicide and abortion, than that would be awesome too , because I think euthanasia is the hardest one for people to understand and for me to explain to non-believers.

The Eucharist is the main reason why I am a Catholic, because I know of the true importance and value of the Eucharist through the Eucharistic miracles and the messages from Christ dictated to Catalina Rivas on the Eucharist which can be found free here - youshallbelieve.com/?page_id=70

However the many other perks to the Catholic faith is their high standards according to Christ on marriage, especially when it comes to divorce, because of what Christ says in the gospels about divorce.

I don’t understand alot of people who claim that it’s okay to divorce and remary for any reason, I mean that’s why we say “Until death do we part” and not “Until divorce do we part” lol.

I think it’s fantastic that your views are similar to the churches, just explained differently, because that way I can help those who are Christian to be against homosexual marriage and you can help those who do not believe be against homosexual marriage, and together we can hopefully help everyone oppose homosexual marriage, through what Im learning from you.

When people read some of your previous comments they think like I did at first that you were in support for homosexual marriage, but Im glad to find out that you arn’t.

Also with that pamphlet, it mentions what you are mentioning, the fact that marriage has become so distorted that, if people understood marriage than homosexual marriage wouldn’t even be up for discussion.

So please continue with me in spreading the truth of ‘homosexuality’ and opposing same sex marriage.

Thank you
Josh.

 

[josh987654321]

Sorry. All humans are not equal, and in very many ways. But this does not mean that they should be be treated with equality under the law.

Please explain what you mean by your last statement.

How is it “inequality to try to make unequal things equal”? That just sounds like nonsense to me, without some further explanation.

I think Lightfromlight, is saying it in regards to marriage from the pamphlet, as in “Inequality to try and make unequal things like homosexual unions and hetrosexual unions equal”.

Like the pamphlet is saying, it’s not whether we want to make homosexual unions and hetrosexual unions equal in marriage, it’s whether or not we want to pretend that homosexual unions are equal to hetrosexual unions.

 

[epan]

I think Lightfromlight, is saying it in regards to marriage from the pamphlet, as in “Inequality to try and make unequal things like homosexual unions and hetrosexual unions equal”.

Like the pamphlet is saying, it’s not whether we want to make homosexual unions and hetrosexual unions equal in marriage, it’s whether or not we want to pretend that homosexual unions are equal to hetrosexual unions.

If you are referring that that absurd piece of rhetoric, which contradicts itself on every page, until I gave up on it, then it makes sense that I don’t understand the statement. That pamphlet is rhetorical garbage, in my opinion. It seems that few writers can even make a logical argument, or use proper grammar.

I guess I am an anachronism. It is such a joy to pick up a piece of good writing from the mid 20th century or earlier.

While I am digressing, this rant is not unrelated to the marriage, sex and morality issues. There is a pervasive narcissism and lack of personal discipline which is a vital component of the issues that we are discussing. Not only does it permeate and motivate moral depravity, it also is reflected in the ability to even write a decent argument. A lack of intellectual discipline is manifested by pamphlets such as that. I find it discouraging that the flash page of this site, which is supposed to be an apologetics site, promotes a piece of tripe so enthusiastically.

My suggestion would be to hand the pamphlet over to a competent moralist who can also write well, and to produce a revised edition.

There is no bright line between intellectual and moral discipline.

 

[josh987654321]

If you are referring that that absurd piece of rhetoric, which contradicts itself on every page, until I gave up on it, then it makes sense that I don’t understand the statement. That pamphlet is rhetorical garbage, in my opinion. It seems that few writers can even make a logical argument, or use proper grammar.

I think Epan if you put a little notation or something that states that you are infact against homosexual marriage, then I think people would be able to see where you are coming from with regard to your arguments, because if they read just what I quoted, than they feel like you are in full support for homosexual marriage lol.

I liked the pamphlet, but it’s a very short pamphlet, that can’t go into full detail or elaborate on what they mean and I assume something to your likeing would be quite a long read, however for me I like something short like a pamphlet that I can say my own way in which will help others understand and that they don’t have to elaborate on too many things

I mean it’s not something you would put before a court I don’t think in intelligently objecting to ‘homosexuality’ to those thinking of the law or non believers, but it is a starter for those who want to object to homosexual marriage or those thinking of homosexual marriage.

And they arn’t going to make it too complex because they want everyone, on nearly all education levels to be able to understand it, that’s why there isn’t a large vocabulary in there.

 

[epan]

Yea the childrens right’s arguments are compelling, on one hand I say it is wrong because of what I have mentioned earlier in regards to ‘homosexuality’ and that the parents actions are the childs greatest influences or role models in their life.

Yet on the other hand, if it is a child up for adoption that has nowhere to go, how do you determine which options is better than this or that, once the best option of a healthy mother and father has been exhausted?

I know how it is supposed to be, but I don’t know what we should be doing when we stray from how it is supposed to be done.

But ‘homosexuality’ and surrogacy are way, way wrong I think, it’s intentionaly crippling a child.

You are against homosexual marriage with me and now you have taken it a step further to attack the high divorce rates (not sure how no fault divorce works, I have never heard of the term ‘no fault divorce’), I would have hesitated to go to the divorce issues because there are alot of people out there and who I know that are either divorced and remarried, or their parents have been divorced and remaried, and that no matter how much sense you make on divorce, they will refuse to see it, because to acknowledge the truth of divorce means that they don’t get a “Second Chance” when it comes to marriage, it stops them from the real commitment of marriage, while others think that they are fully commited, because they all like the idea of “a way out” or “second chance” in marriage.

If you are also against euthanasia, suicide and abortion, than that would be awesome too , because I think euthanasia is the hardest one for people to understand and for me to explain to non-believers.

The Eucharist is the main reason why I am a Catholic, because I know of the true importance and value of the Eucharist through the Eucharistic miracles and the messages from Christ dictated to Catalina Rivas on the Eucharist which can be found free here - youshallbelieve.com/?page_id=70

However the many other perks to the Catholic faith is their high standards according to Christ on marriage, especially when it comes to divorce, because of what Christ says in the gospels about divorce.

I don’t understand alot of people who claim that it’s okay to divorce and remary for any reason, I mean that’s why we say “Until death do we part” and not “Until divorce do we part” lol.

I think it’s fantastic that your views are similar to the churches, just explained differently, because that way I can help those who are Christian to be against homosexual marriage and you can help those who do not believe be against homosexual marriage, and together we can hopefully help everyone oppose homosexual marriage, through what Im learning from you.

When people read some of your previous comments they think like I did at first that you were in support for homosexual marriage, but Im glad to find out that you arn’t.

Also with that pamphlet, it mentions what you are mentioning, the fact that marriage has become so distorted that, if people understood marriage than homosexual marriage wouldn’t even be up for discussion.

So please continue with me in spreading the truth of ‘homosexuality’ and opposing same sex marriage.

Thank you
Josh.

My last next door neighbors in the US bought a home together, and have a child. They are very good people. Very kind and bright. The kid has excellent parents, and a great but modest home. One parent stays at home, but it is the male who can work at home. The female has a typical job at an office. They have chosen not the marry.

So… this kid has the benefit of an unusually positive environment to grow up, so long as it stays intact.

This issue of child welfare is far more complex than the jack booted ideologues on either side of the issue would like to admit.

I don’t know where all of this is going in our society. I do believe that we must consider history and experience, but that it is a very rapidly and radically changing world.

Institutions, such as the CC, and such as various governments do their best, but they are always behind the curve. They are intentionally designed to be lethargic and conservative. That is a good thing. But it is not perfect.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Dr. Keith Ablow on Threats Against Those Trying to Do Good Science on Gay Parenting

Regarding the Regnerus’ study

 

[josh987654321]

It wouldn’t surprise me _Abyssina if some of what that guy is saying is actually the case, but there are way too many variables I think when doing these studies at this stage, it wont be until it’s too late that there is definate scientific fact of the true nature of what they are doing when it comes to ‘homosexuality’.

People just need to use common sense when it comes to homosexual couple’s and child raising … and ‘homosexuality altogether’ I think.

Like Ive said before, the very nature of homosexuality means using organs in a manner in which they are not meant to be used for, and that a child’s parents are the greatest role models in a child’s life, not what they say, but what they do.

And when we put two and two together, this will obviously cause a tremendous amount of harm to a child’s development, which I think would be just common sense for most people, but common sense just isn’t common anymore I don’t think.

When people allow homosexual unions to take part in a lifestyle that’s similar to hetrosexual unions in marriage, than they are just allowing homosexual couples to play into the fantasy more, thinking their behaviour is natural or normal, deep down they and others must know that their behaviour is disordered surely.

Thank you for reading
Josh.

 

[josh987654321]

It wouldn’t surprise me _Abyssina if some of what that guy is saying is actually the case, but there are way too many variables I think when doing these studies at this stage, it wont be until it’s too late that there is definate scientific fact of the true nature of what they are doing when it comes to ‘homosexuality’.

People just need to use common sense when it comes to homosexual couple’s and child raising … and ‘homosexuality altogether’ I think.

Like Ive said before, the very nature of homosexuality means using organs in a manner in which they are not meant to be used for, and that a child’s parents are the greatest role models in a child’s life, not what they say, but what they do.

And when we put two and two together, this will obviously cause a tremendous amount of harm to a child’s development, which I think would be just common sense for most people, but common sense just isn’t common anymore I don’t think.

When people allow homosexual unions to take part in a lifestyle that’s similar to hetrosexual unions in marriage, than they are just allowing homosexual couples to play into the fantasy more, thinking their behaviour is natural or normal, deep down they and others must know that their behaviour is disordered surely.

Thank you for reading
Josh.

In reading this, I can see how this would be very hurtful to a homosexual, saying that their desires are disordered, no doubt this is why alot would suffer from depression and things, It would be a very heavy cross to carry as a homosexual, I think most people are thinking that by pretending that homosexual desires are normal it will relieve the weight of their crosses, but I don’t think that will work, because deep down they would always know that their desires are disordered.

I apologise for any offense this quoted post may have caused to anyone, Id like to find a way to help homosexuals, with controling their desires and living a full life, one which is content with themselves, as yes they may have some disordered desires, but we all have disordered desires including hetrosexuals, but that does not mean that there is something wrong with them, or that they themselves are disordered and they still have an opportunity to lead a very full and normal life through Christ, that they are no different to any other person who leads a full and fruitful life.

Again I apologise for the Insensitivites of my above post and others.

 

[GaryTaylor]

we all have disordered desires including hetrosexuals, but that does not mean that there is something wrong with them, or that they themselves are disordered

Good point, gets back to the left turn society here as a whole made years ago, this is just another. All which undermine life and marriage/family as that is the order. Nevertheless this would be thinking from strictly a Catholic perspective,

 

[livingwordunity]

‘Equality’ argument for gay couples being allowed to marry is bizarre. Marriage is forbidden for brothers and sisters, first cousins, multiple people, and people and animals. Any of the people can argue they love each other and there can be equality when they can be treated like anyone else under the law

Fact that states prohibit such marriage proves the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment does not provide a right to marry whoever you want

Those who are for so-called “same sex marriage” are emotionalists. They operate almost exclusively on feeling and emotion and not on logic. That’s why it doesn’t have to make any sense to them for them to want it.

 

[josh987654321]

Those who are for so-called “same sex marriage” are emotionalists. They operate almost exclusively on feeling and emotion and not on logic. That’s why it doesn’t have to make any sense to them for them to want it.

We can use that emotion to our advantage, because those who are for “same sex marriage” and other homosexual acts are trying to help homosexuals, we just need them to see that the only way to help homosexuals is by giving them the truth of their disordered and immoral desires, that are to be controled and not encouraged, they just don’t realise that they are making it worse for homosexuals when they encourage homosexual acts, as if their crosses were not heavy enough as it is, they hardly need gay-activists telling them lies in order to make them feel better about their disordered desires.

The cross that homosexuals carry is that because of their disordered desires, whether on their foremind or deep down inside they know that they will never be able to recieve the gifts of a hetrosexual union, which is true, so gay-activists think that by telling them a lie (that their desires are ‘okay’ not ‘diordered’ but ‘natural’) and (that they can have a homosexual union equivalent to a hetrosexual union), that they will be making homosexuals feel better, but the reality is, that as they persue their immoral and disordered desires of homosexuality, the more homosexual’s try to imitate or mimic a hetrosexual union, the heavier their crosses will become, as the reality of their disordered desires will become more and more relevant, until they themselves can no longer supress it.

Therefore it’s cruel to lie to homosexuals in supporting homosexual acts, they need the truth, when they are no longer a slave of their disordered and immoral desires, only then will their crosses become lighter, when they give up on their unachievable goal of equality with a hetrosexual union.

Their opposition is not just from other people, but from the human anatomy and nature itself, they cannot win, it’s impossible to have a real homosexual marriage, so why are people entertaining the idea, it’s cruel I think.

I think if we explain it this way, others will also understand.

Thank you for reading
Josh.

 

[josh987654321]

I view it in a perspective of trying to help homosexuals, in which I assume gay-activists are also trying to do, so all we need to do is show the ones who are encouraging acts of homosexuality that they are making matters worse for homosexuals, they are telling them what homosexuals want to hear and not the truth that they need to hear.

They are ecouraging homosexuals to live a cheap imitation of a hetrosexual union which will make homosexuals feel worse, not better.

So we need to help homosexuals control their desires that are disordered and be content and happy with who they are, knowing that many suffer from immoral and disordered desires that they must also try to control, only in this way will it make them feel better, and lighten their crosses.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[_Abyssinia]

Young Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage Undaunted

They hear that their cause is lost, that demographics and the march of history have doomed their campaign to keep marriage only between a man and a woman. But the young conservatives who oppose same-sex marriage — unlike most of their generation — remain undaunted.

 

[Kdruesedow]

‘Equality’ argument for gay couples being allowed to marry is bizarre. Marriage is forbidden for brothers and sisters, first cousins, multiple people, and people and animals. Any of the people can argue they love each other and there can be equality when they can be treated like anyone else under the law

Fact that states prohibit such marriage proves the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment does not provide a right to marry whoever you want

Ah yes yes, but there are reasons for forbidding these other types of marriage…

First cousins and other blood relatives-possibility for mutations in the genes if they reproduce

People and animals- animals cannot consent to the union or any sexual acts that might come about afterwards

Multiple people- this one is probably next after gay marriage, simply because people are free and my religion should not be pressed on anyone else simply because my holy book says their way of life is immoral.

In the marriage of a homosexual couple, each party can consent, and there is no chance for genetic mutations because the two cannot reproduce.

So you have effectively compared apples to oranges in your argument above, these other types of marriage are against the law for logical reasons, not just because my religion disagrees with them.

 

[Kdruesedow]

Obama effectively admits DOMA constitutional

…simply asking a law he doesn’t like be ignored… actually, it almost sounds to me as if he is doing his duty as president to ensure that church and state are separated and that all Americans are treated equally and given their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

[Kdruesedow]

‘Equal means an’ incestuous couple or more than 2 biological related people, person who wants to marry multiple persons, a person who wants marry an inaimate object, people who wants to marry 1 or more animals, first cousins, ‘doesn’t have to spend money for a lawyer to get the same benefits a straight couple gets simply because the straight couple has the word “married” attached to their relationship’

That argument can be changed to accommodate any people. As was written previously, states prohibts all the above from being able to marry and there have been no successful court challenges to change this prohibition so ‘equality’ is not an argument that has persuaded the court before

Since you’ve said this before, I’ll go ahead and say this again as well:
Ah yes yes, but there are reasons for forbidding these other types of marriage…

First cousins and other blood relatives-possibility for mutations in the genes if they reproduce

People and animals- animals cannot consent to the union or any sexual acts that might come about afterwards

Multiple people- this one is probably next after gay marriage, simply because people are free and my religion should not be pressed on anyone else simply because my holy book says their way of life is immoral.

In the marriage of a homosexual couple, each party can consent, and there is no chance for genetic mutations because the two cannot reproduce.

So you have effectively compared apples to oranges in your argument above, these other types of marriage are against the law for logical reasons, not just because my religion disagrees with them.

 

[Kdruesedow]

That isn’t anywhere in US history…one group or another has been treated like dirt since before this country was set up.

And there is no reason that should continue to happen! Unless you are happy just sticking to the status quo and watching your brothers and sisters be denied the rights they deserve